look up slavery reparations on wikipedia and than link to the number 11 footnote. It is a NYT article from Obama's notorius friend and Harvard professor who was made nationally famous for getting into the roe with the police officer a few years back; Henry Gates. Of interest he claims Obama's feelings about reparations are ambigious. Obama is for it in theory but does not think it practical.

Interestingly he gives us a history lesson about slavery responsibility on BOTH sides of the Atlantic. He points out that some African Kings and Kingdoms were very complicit in actually providing the blacks to the whites for monetary gain. 4 to 500 thousand Blacks were brought to the US while 12 to 13 million were sold overseas around the world. The US was really only a small percentage of the total of recipient of blacks sold into slavery.

And members of their own race sadly sold them to the whites. I was not really aware of the extent of this. What all men, white black, asian will do to one another for money is part of history of humanity from day one. Always was, always will be.

Instantcheckmate.com, which labels itself the "Internet's leading authority on background checks," placed both ads. A statistical analysis of the company's advertising has found it has disproportionately used ad copy including the word "arrested" for black-identifying names, even when a person has no arrest record.

Latanya Sweeney is a Harvard University professor of government with a doctorate in computer science. After learning that her own name had popped up in an "arrested?" ad when a colleague was searching for one of her academic publications, she ran more than 120,000 searches for names primarily given to either black or white children, testing ads delivered for 2,400 real names 50 times each. (The author of this story is a Harvard University fellow collaborating with Professor Sweeney on a book about the business of personal data.)

Ebony Jefferson, for example, often turns up an instantcheckmate.com ad reading: "Ebony Jefferson, arrested?" but an ad triggered by a search for Emily Jefferson would read: "We found Emily Jefferson." Searches for randomly chosen black-identifying names such as Deshawn Williams, Latisha Smith or Latanya Smith often produced the "arrested?" headline or ad text with the word "arrest," whereas other less ethnic-sounding first names matched with the same surnames typically did not.

‘Major Hasan Syndrome’ at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department?Once again, incompetence and even criminal behavior get ignored for the sake of diversity.byJack Dunphy

BioNovember 28, 2012 - 12:00 am Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people (and, lest we forget, an unborn child) and wounding 29 others at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, had raised a number of red flags suggesting a disposition for committing, or at the very least having sympathy for, acts of Islamic terror prior to his massacre. The signs were ignored due to political correctness.

There is a price to be paid for the “inclusiveness” and “diversity” we’re all supposed to be so proud of. We can be thankful the price is seldom as dreadful as it was at Fort Hood, but sometimes the cost is a level of criminality less horrific but disturbing all the same.

Witness the case of Bernice Abram, a captain with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Los Angeles Times has reported that since April of last year, Capt. Abram has been on paid administrative leave after being caught in a sting that revealed her relationship with Dion Grim, a suspected drug dealer.

According to the Times, a Sheriff’s Department detective was listening to wiretapped phone calls Grim had made when he recognized Capt. Abram’s voice on the line. In the ensuing sting, Capt. Abram was advised of a purported drug investigation being conducted near Grim’s home. Minutes later, as investigators listened in, Abram phoned Grim and warned him about the operation. She was immediately placed on paid leave, as was her niece, a civilian jail employee, who is accused of illegally accessing law enforcement databases on behalf of Grim.

Together, Abram and her niece have collected about $300,000 in salary since being put on leave, says the Times.

The Times took care to note that Abram was a “respected captain with more than 150 deputies under her command.” To that characterization a question must be raised: respected by whom? Concerns about Abram’s relationship with Grim had arisen long before she was ensnared in the sting. Indeed, she had made no secret of her willingness to help Grim get through previous brushes with the law, going so far as to order him released from custody after he was arrested on a drug charge, and securing the release of his car from the impound lot without his having to pay the customary fees. Abram even picked Grim up from jail herself. She also used her position to fix traffic tickets issued to Grim and his sister.

It is inconceivable that Abram’s conduct wasn’t widely known among the rank and file deputies, both at her own station and at the one near where Grim lived. It is also inconceivable that word of her questionable ties to Grim did not reach people above her in the chain of command, people who in theory should have been able to correct her behavior.

So why did it take such a flagrant act of subverting her own department’s objectives before action was taken against her? Everyone knows the answer to that: Abram was given a pass because she is a black female working in an organization that values “diversity” more than competence, and even, to at least some extent, more than adherence to the law.

Just as Major Hasan’s superiors in the Army turned a blind eye to his descent into jihadism lest they be branded as intolerant, Capt. Abram’s superiors in the Sheriff’s Department were content to ignore her relationship with a criminal for fear of stirring the wrath of this or that group of racial grievance-mongers. That she so boldly interfered with the prosecution of criminal cases against her friend the drug dealer, even to the point of asking others in the Sheriff’s Department to act on her behalf, is an indication of the freedom she felt in flouting the law and the Sheriff’s Department’s regulations. She knew no one would dare touch her.

Lest my friends in the Sheriff’s Department accuse me of picking on them, my own Los Angeles Police Department is not immune to Major Hasan Syndrome.

Back in 2002, the Los Angeles Times reported that Maurice Moore, a black LAPD deputy chief, was for at least seven years laundering money for his drug trafficker son, who orchestrated the scheme from inside federal prison. Just as disturbing, the FBI informed then-LAPD Chief Bernard Parks about their suspicions as to Moore’s involvement in the criminal enterprise. Parks, who is also black, declined to take any action against his subordinate. Moore was allowed to retire without facing any departmental charges, and the statute of limitations precluded prosecution on most of the allegations against him.

Mr. Parks was denied a second term as police chief in 2002. But today, he serves on the L.A. city council.

“I don’t understand why this [investigation] was managed the way it was,” wrote Thomas Lorenzen, at the time an LAPD commander who wrote the department’s report on the Moore case. “If it would have been your average police officer, it would have been utterly different.”

Indeed it would have, as can be said of any number of incidents involving high-ranking officers whose ability to check this or that box on the diversity paperwork has saved them from demotion, termination, or prosecution.

Sometimes Major Hasan Syndrome serves to obscure not criminality, but the much, much more commonly observed incompetence. Off the top of my head, I can think of four LAPD captains, all of whom owe their current positions to belonging to one or more “under-represented classes,” and all of whom have performed poorly in every position and at every rank since the day they were hired. Nonetheless, they have continued to earn promotions even after demonstrating monumental malfeasance.

One was the key figure in a lawsuit in which officers were awarded millions of dollars in damages, mostly owing to her mismanagement of the division she commanded. She’s been promoted twice since then. Another, the subject of laudatory news stories chronicling her rise in the LAPD, has so poorly run her current command that crime in that part of town is up almost 20 percent from last year’s levels, by far the largest increase in the city. We can expect her to be promoted to commander any time now.

So we await to hear what will become of Capt. Bernice Abram. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office has declined to prosecute her on the grounds that there is insufficient proof that she knew Dion Grim was involved in any crime when she tipped him off to the investigation in his neighborhood. And maybe there isn’t, but the L.A. Times reports that the FBI continues to investigate her, even as she continues to draw her captain’s salary for doing nothing.

Perhaps, like former LAPD Deputy Chief Maurice Moore, she’ll be able to ride out the investigation until the statute of limitations expires, and then quietly retire.

But that’s just a small price to pay for “diversity,” right? And it pales in comparison with the price the Army paid for ignoring Major Hasan’s murderous predilections. But note well the rubbish that came spilling out of the mouths of people we had hoped knew better after the Fort Hood massacre. “Workplace violence,” it was called, as insulting a use of Orwellian language as has ever been seen. But perhaps the most galling was General George Casey, the Army’s top commander, who uttered this timeless gem of politically correct hokum:

Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.

At least Capt. Abram and her accused drug-dealing friend haven’t killed anyone, at least not that we know of. But even if they had, would some hack politician or careerist cop out there say it was merely the price of “diversity” in the Sheriff’s Department? Someone would. You just know someone would.

'Stop Being So Anglo' San Francisco's Möbius strip of discriminationBy JAMES TARANTO

"Allegations of racism and other discrimination against San Francisco Housing Authority Executive Director Henry Alvarez are flying in lawsuits filed by his subordinates," the San Francisco Examiner reports. It's a man-bites-dog story inasmuch as Alvarez is black and his accusers are white--the reverse of the usual race-discrimination stereotype.

In one lawsuit, Tim Larsen, a lawyer who works for the authority, alleges that Alvarez "told him to 'stop being so Anglo' and that he 'did not have enough kink in his hair,' " reports the San Francisco Chronicle. The Examiner adds that "Alvarez allegedly asked Larsen to climb a telephone pole to cut down some dangling shoes. When Larsen questioned why he was being asked to do the task when it was clearly not in his attorney job description, Alvarez allegedly replied, 'you and I are like Captain Kirk and Spock; you will never escape me.' "

Then there's this: "Larsen . . . claims Alvarez denied him a promotion based on his race, . . . admitting he would have granted the promotion 'if you had more melatonin in your skin,' according to court documents filed last month. The suit surmises that Alvarez actually was referring to 'melanin,' a hormone that determines skin pigment."

Sounds more like Archie Bunker than anyone from "Star Trek."

When we read about this case, it reminded us of another one, which we wrote about back in 2007. As the Chronicle reported then, San Francisco was defending "an affirmative action program for minority and female contractors," even though a 1996 ballot initiative banned all such racial preferences by governments in California. A state appeals court had just ruled in the city's favor, "saying a history of discrimination may justify preferential treatment despite California's Proposition 209."

This seemed odd to us:

[San Francisco] claims that its own employees have a history of "long-standing and pervasive discrimination" against female and minority contractors--even though for 23 years, city policy has required discrimination in favor of women and minorities.If the city's claim is true, why doesn't it just fire the wayward employees? It could replace them with women and minorities and kill two birds with one stone.That case, known as Coral Construction v. San Francisco, is still going on. In August 2010, it reached the state Supreme Court, which sustained the appellate court's ruling. The justices "said San Francisco could try to show that it had intentionally discriminated in the past and that the bidding preferences were needed to level the playing field," reported the Chronicle.

According to a blog post last month by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the plaintiffs, a pretrial hearing in the case was scheduled for Nov. 16. PLF's Meriem Hubbard tells Best of the Web Today that it has since been postponed until Jan. 17.

Here's how the PLF post sums up the case:

Essentially, the city must convince the court that (1) it has been so powerless and inept that it has been unable to force itself to comply with federal and state constitutional prohibitions against discrimination; or (2) despite governing over a geographical area heralded for its progressive politics, tolerance, and diversity, the city has for decades deliberately enacted and enforced contracting procedures with the intent to discriminate against every category of racial and ethnic minorities and women."To put it another way, San Francisco's argument is that two wrongs make a right: that it should be permitted to engage in racial discrimination because it has engaged in racial discrimination.

But wait. According to the lawsuits against Alvarez, there is "a pattern of alleged inappropriate and illegal behavior," in the Chronicle's words, some of it racially motivated and directed against whites. Moreover, as we noted in 2007, antiwhite discrimination in the form of "affirmative action" has been official city policy since at least 1984.

If San Francisco prevails in the Coral Construction case, the logic of its argument would dictate that its history of discrimination against whites justifies future discrimination against minorities. When you sanction discrimination in order to remedy discrimination, you make of the law a Möbius strip.

I'm having a hard time figuring this out. The media and others report it as racial, African Americans versus the Somalis. Where do they think Somalia is and what race do they see? It looks to me like local blacks' intolerance of minority, immigrant blacks - for being different? Authorities will be reviewing surveillance footage.

A parent commented: "You can't throw kids in a building and expect them to get along," she said. "It's a challenge for all of our students to live amid such rich diversity."

My two cents: With a 50% graduation rate, how about we throw them into books and more math tests in place of the time we spend celebrating our rich diversity.

I've said it before and I will say it again, multiculturalism has never worked.

In every instance in history, societies that have been multicultural, have at one point or another led to either the death of the weaker groups, the group's expulsion, or assimilation (through being bred into), the stronger group.

Nature dictates that there is no such thing as getting along. It doesn't mean that people are basically racist or hate each other. It just means that people intuitively seek to protect their subset.

Incarceration rates for black Americans dropped sharply from 2000 to 2009, especially for women, while the rate of imprisonment for whites and Hispanics rose over the same decade, according to a report released Wednesday by a prison research and advocacy group in Washington.

The declining rates for blacks represented a significant shift in the racial makeup of the United States’ prisons and suggested that the disparities that have long characterized the prison population may be starting to diminish.

“It certainly marks a shift from what we’ve seen for several decades now,” said Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, whose report was based on data from the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the Justice Department. “Normally, these things don’t change very dramatically over a one-decade period.”

The decline in incarceration rates was most striking for black women, dropping 30.7 percent over the ten-year period. In 2000, black women were imprisoned at six times the rate of white women; by 2009, they were 2.8 times more likely to be in prison. For black men, the rate of imprisonment decreased by 9.8 percent; in 2000 they were incarcerated at 7.7 times the rate of white men, a rate that fell to 6.4 times that of white men by 2009.

For white men and women, however, incarceration rates increased over the same period, rising 47.1 percent for white women and 8.5 percent for white men. By the end of the decade, Hispanic men were slightly less likely to be in prison, a drop of 2.2 percent, but Hispanic women were imprisoned more frequently, an increase of 23.3 percent.

Over all, blacks currently make up about 38 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons; whites account for about 34 percent.

More than 100,000 women are currently incarcerated in state or federal prisons. The overall rate of incarceration varies widely from state to state, as does the ratio of blacks to whites and Hispanics.

But the trend is clear, Mr. Mauer said, adding that no single factor could explain the shifting figures but that changes in drug laws and sentencing for drug offenses probably played a large role. Other possible contributors included decreasing arrest rates for blacks, the rising number of whites and Hispanics serving mandatory sentences for methamphetamine abuse, and socioeconomic shifts that have disproportionately affected white women.

Alfred Blumstein, an expert on the criminal justice system at Carnegie Mellon University, said his own findings from research he conducted with Allen J. Beck of the Bureau of Justice Statistics also indicated that the rate of incarceration for blacks was declining compared with that for whites.

“A major contributor has been the intensity of incarceration for drug offending,” Dr. Blumstein said, “and that reached a peak with the very long sentences we gave out for crack offenders, stimulated in large part by the violence that was going on in the crack markets.”

But crack cocaine has become far less of an issue in recent years, he noted, a fact reflected in revisions of federal sentencing laws. And inmates serving time for crack offenses are now emerging from prison, “so there would be a disproportionate black exodus from prison that as a result would be reflected in a lowering of the incarceration-rate ratio,” he said.

Mr. Mauer said that especially for black women, the drop in incarceration compared with whites was “all about drug offenses.”

In New York State, for example, where the overall prison population has dropped substantially, for women “virtually the entire decline was a decline in drug offenses,” he said. Increasingly severe drug laws and stiff sentences for drug offenses resulted in disproportionate numbers of black women going to prison, he said, “and now they are disproportionately benefiting from reductions in that area.”

“We’re not going to see necessarily the same level across all 50 states, but the patterns are there,” he said.

One thing that has not changed, Mr. Mauer said, is that incarceration rates for women as a whole continue to increase at a higher rate than those for men.

Are women equal to men? Are Jews equal to gentiles? Are blacks equal to Italians, Irish, Polish and other white people? The answer is probably a big fat no, and the pretense or assumption that we are equal -- or should be equal -- is foolhardy and creates mischief. Let's look at it.

Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. Female intelligence is packed much closer to the middle of the bell curve, whereas men's intelligence has far greater variability. That means that though there are many more male geniuses, there are also many more male idiots. The latter might partially explain why more men are in jail than women.

Watch any Saturday afternoon college basketball game and ask yourself the question fixated in the minds of liberals everywhere: "Does this look like America?" Among the 10 players on the court, at best there might be two white players. If you want to see the team's white players, you must look at the bench. A Japanese or Chinese player is close to being totally out of the picture, even on the bench. Professional basketball isn't much better, with 80 percent of the players being black, but at least there's a Chinese player. Professional football isn't much better, with blacks being 65 percent. In both sports, blacks are among the highest-paid players and have the highest number of awards for excellence. Blacks who trace their ancestry to West Africa, including black Americans, hold more than 95 percent of the top times in sprinting.

By contrast, blacks are only 2 percent of the NHL's ice hockey players. But don't fret about black NHL underrepresentation. State underrepresentation is worse. Most U.S. professional hockey players were born in Minnesota, followed by Massachusetts. Not a single U.S. professional hockey player can boast of having been born and raised in Hawaii, Mississippi or Louisiana. Any way we cut it, there is simply no racial proportionality or diversity in professional basketball, football and hockey.

A more emotionally charged question is whether we have equal intelligence. Take Jews, for example. They are only 3 percent of the U.S. population. Half-baked theories of racial proportionality would predict that 3 percent of U.S. Nobel laureates are Jews, but that's way off the mark. Jews constitute a whopping 39 percent of American Nobel Prize winners. At the international level, the disparity is worse. Jews are not even 1 percent of the world's population, but they constitute 20 percent of the world's Nobel Prize winners.

There are many other inequalities and disproportionalities. Asian-Americans routinely score the highest on the math portion of the SAT, whereas blacks score the lowest. Men are 50 percent of the population, and so are women; yet men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. I'm personally wondering what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men. Population statistics for South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1 percent of their respective populations is black. By contrast, in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, blacks are overrepresented in terms of their percentages in the general population. Pima Indians of Arizona have the world's highest known diabetes rates. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women.

Soft-minded and sloppy-thinking academics, lawyers and judges harbor the silly notion that but for the fact of discrimination, we'd be proportionately distributed by race across incomes, education, occupations and other outcomes. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere, at any time, that proportionality is the norm anywhere on earth; however, much of our thinking, many of our laws and much of our public policy are based upon proportionality's being the norm. Maybe this vision is held because people believe that equality in fact is necessary for equality before the law. But the only requirement for equality before the law is that one is a human being.

California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to this bill as well.

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.

The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.” The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation,” the bill says.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that, “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation.” However, the Democrats defeated the amendment. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law, and accordingly decided that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that should be equally as embraced as homosexuality.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

Who Cares If Pedophilia Is A Sexual Orientation?

It also means that, if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or any other high-risk occupation.

Recently, a United States District Court Judge, William Shubb, sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the legislation, which is known as California SB 1172.

“Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment,” wrote Judge Shubb.

“This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

“This will be a long, grueling battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.

Thankfully, for the time being, this legislation has been blocked, but many questions still remain. This bill establishes a dangerous precedent for normalizing the behavior of pedophiles while stripping parents of their rights and peace of mind.

One can certainly make the argument that homosexuals are “born that way,” and we generally would not dispute that. However, when we have legislators that want to extend the “born that way” defense to pedophiles, this crosses a very dangerous line.

Whether a pedophile is born that way or not, it still does not make their behavior acceptable in any way. If so, then you could declare rapists are “born that way.” They can’t help that they need to rape! Poor them!

Let’s be real.

Sex between an adult and a child too young to understand what is going on is not the same thing as sex between two consenting adults. The operative word here is “consenting.” Children—by both law and basic common sense—cannot “consent.” If Jackie Spier had a son or daughter, and an adult “had consensual sex” with him or her, we do not believe that what she would be so adamant about protecting them.

What liberals conveniently ignore is the fact that all societies who participated in pedophilia—such as the Hittites, Canaanites, Greeks, and Romans—eventually caved in on themselves due to corruption and depravity. Further, let’s not also forget that their favorite form of entertainment was watching people get torn to shreds by lions, hacked to death, and burned alive.

Recognizing sexual ‘orientation’ is walking a razor’s edge. Unlike gay-oriented legislation, pedophilia has victims who must be protected. We don’t put pedophiles in prison to make them stop being pedophiles; we put them there because they threaten the safety of the most vulnerable people in a society.

A fellow walks up to the dog-licensing clerk and demands a license for his cat. The clerk points out that there is no such thing as a cat license, and thus he has no need of a cat license. Noting the man’s confusion, she explains that dogs and cats are different kinds of animals. Dogs tend to wander off and get lost, dig up other people’s yards, bite people, get into garbage, and leave their droppings in inconvenient places; cats generally do not do these things. Licensing would be pointless, for the government doesn’t need the same control over cats as it does over dogs.

The customer feels unaffirmed in his choice of a cat, and demands that the government recognize that his cat is just as important as a dog. Oh, but it’s not a question of importance, the clerk insists; it’s just that cats and dogs are quite different, and there is no government interest in licensing cats. He pesters her for so long that, eventually, the clerk, in sheer frustration, grabs a form, crosses out the word “dog” and writes in the word “cat” in crayon. The customer goes away pleased.

Unexpectedly, some of the man’s cat-owning friends soon follow suit. This raises concern for the licensing administrators. They really cannot justify taking money to license cats, yet it seems many people are made quite happy by having their choices validated. Finally, it occurs to someone that, since dogs are four-legged furry mammals with tails and claws, and cats are four-legged furry mammals with tails and claws—and after all, this really is the only set of characteristics that matters—then the obvious thing to do is to redefine “dog” so that it includes cats.

This decision is not without its detractors. Some sticks-in-the-mud point out that the definition is so broad that it also includes bears, rabbits, gerbils, and ferrets, not to mention the incredibly obvious fact that cats simply are not dogs, and that redefining them does not change this fact, and that changing definitions based on policy preferences will only lead to problems. These arguments fall on deaf ears. The city council makes it official, redefining “dog” to include cats. Why cat owners feel affirmed by having their cats renamed “dogs” remains a mystery.

Several more cities take up the call to rename cats “dogs,” but most towns resist because, as they point out, it’s simply not true that cats are dogs. The state legislature is besieged with efforts to rename cats as dogs. The state has always left policy choices about cats and dogs to local deliberations, but is now in an awkward position. It runs several venues that admit dogs but not cats; it has compensation policies that are differently affected by ownership of cats rather than dogs.

No state legislator or administrator has ever thought it necessary to define “dog,” since everyone knows what a dog is, and what a dog is has not changed in the entire history of humankind or caninekind. It is also plain as the nose on everyone’s face that dogs are not cats, and vice versa.

Failure to define the term, though, will only lead to confusion about employee compensation and mischief at state-run venues. The legislators recognize a simple fact: No matter how one defines “dog,” it cannot be the case that both definitions are true. Either “dog” will be defined according to its observable operations, or it will be defined according to its nonessential outward appearance. They decide to go ahead and define “dog” in the “traditional” way, according to the reality of dogs and cats, such that cats are excluded.

Professor Vermes. Born Jewish in Hungary and became a priest to escape Nazism later studied the Dead Sea Scrolls has a fascinating view of Jesus. His scholarship in this area helped transform long held dogma about Jesus. OF course there will always be debate. And there will always be mystery.

He puts more emphasis on the fact that Jesus was Jewish. That the Jews did not kill Jesus (though some of them may not have minded the Romans doing it).

Most of all he admires Jesus for being a genius and closer to spiritual truth then anyone but nonetheless he was still a man:

I recall being offended by Ann Coulter comment on Donny Deusch stating that Christianity is an improvement on Judaism. After reading this article I would prefer that both religions are great with wonderful teachings we can all learn and hope to live by.

Why do Republicans keep endorsing the most extreme and hyperbolic African-American voices — those intent on comparing blacks who support the Democratic candidates to slaves? That idea, which only a black person could invoke without being castigated for the flagrant racial overtones, is a trope to which an increasingly homogeneous Republican Party seems to subscribe.

Charles M. Blow

The most recent example of this is E.W. Jackson, who last weekend became the Virginia Republicans’ candidate for lieutenant governor in the state.

“It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat party. They have insulted us, used us and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies: ‘Unless we support the Democrat party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed.’ They think we’re stupid and these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe as Christians.”

He continues:

“Shame on us for allowing ourselves to be sold to the highest bidder. We belong to God. Our ancestors were sold against their will centuries ago, but we’re going to the slave market voluntarily today. Yes, it’s just that ugly.”

(Jackson also took swipes at the gay community and compared Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan.)

The Democrat Plantation theology goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things — welfare, food stamps and the like. This renders blacks dependent on and beholden to that government and the Democratic Party.

This is not completely dissimilar from Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments, although he never mentioned race:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

Star Parker, a Scripps Howard syndicated columnist, failed Republican Congressional candidate and author of the book “Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It,” argued in an article in 2009 on the conservative Web site Townhall:

“A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mind-sets from ‘How do I take care of myself?’ to ‘What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?’"

Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R. I., put it more bluntly in an editorial on the Ashbrook University Web site in 2002:

“For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation.”

That last bit hints at the other part of Democrat Plantation theology: that black Democrats and white liberals are equal enforcers of enslavement.

A 2010 unsigned article published on the Web site of the conservative weekly Human Events reads:

“If black Americans wish to be Democrats, that is their choice — or is it? Despite the fact that Democrats enjoy the support of over 90% of black America, the other 10%, those who dare to ‘stray from the plantation,’ have been routinely vilified — by other black Americans.”

Dr. Ben Carson, who delivered a speech blasting the president during the National Prayer breakfast this year and quickly became a darling of the right (The Wall Street Journal declared: “Ben Carson for President”), said of white liberals in a radio interview:

“They are the most racist people there are. Because they put you in a little category, a little box. You have to think this way. How could you dare come off the plantation?”

(Carson also got in trouble for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. He later apologized for those comments, “if anybody was offended.”)

Unfortunately, the runaway slave image among many black Republican politicians is becoming ingrained and conservative audiences are applauding them for it.

Herman Cain, for example, built an entire presidential campaign on slave imagery.

C. Mason Weaver, a radio talk show host, failed Republican Congressional candidate from California and author of the book “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation,” said of President Obama at a 2009 Tea Party rally in Washington: “You thought he was saying was ‘hope and change’; he was saying was ‘ropes and chains,’ not ‘hope and change.’ ” Weaver continued: “Decide today if you’re going to be free or slaves. Decide today if you’re going to be a slave to your master or the master of your own destiny.” Weaver would repeat the “rope and chains” line on Fox and Friends that year.

The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a Tea Party member and occasional Fox News guest, even made a movie called “Runaway Slave,” in which he says that America should “run away from socialism, run from statism, run away from progressivism.”

While these politicians accuse the vast majority of African-Americans of being mindless drones of the Democrats, they are skating dangerously close to — if not beyond — the point where they become conservative caricatures.

The implication that most African-Americans can’t be discerning, that they can’t weigh the pros and cons of political parties and make informed decisions, that they are rendered servile in exchange for social services, is the highest level of insult. And black politicians are the ones Republicans are cheering on as they deliver it.

Thanks CCP for posting. The people Blow attempts to rip make more sense than the columnist.

"The Democrat Plantation theology goes something like this: Democrats use the government to addict and incapacitate blacks by giving them free things — welfare, food stamps and the like. This renders blacks dependent on and beholden to that government and the Democratic Party."

The data mining people on the campaign know that in large numbers, not for all, this is true. Did Blow or his newspaper ever investigate the campaign for exploiting that? ACORN and community organizing in the day of Barack Obama's involvement in it was EXPLICIT in their support for "welfare rights", never supporting economic liberty or prosperity through free enterprise.

"Herman Cain, for example, built an entire presidential campaign on slave imagery."

Herman Cain had a Master's degree in Computer Science, rose to the highest levels in business based on performance, not tokenism, served as Director of the Kansas City Fed and built his campaign on a tax reform plan that, if implemented, would have cut the black unemployment rate in half and same for every other demographic, without spending an additional dime on plantation welfare programs.

Why do these vacuous, liberal, NY Times opinion writers need to rely on lies and false premises to make their point? If you must mislead to make a point, maybe your point is wrong.

I would note however that if 98% of blacks are voting Dem, the other 2%, including some mentioned by Blow, have turned out to be some of the smartest and most courageous people in our country. I notice he didn't take on Thomas Sowell, or try try to debate Walter Williams on welfare economics, and had to twist Carson's views in order to slam him.

Doug wrote:"Blow's real point is that liberals feel quite threatened by the rise of a small number of black conservatives and take every occasion they can to put them down"

Yes. Doug did you read Obama's speech at Morehouse? If one reads it one would think parts of it (at least) was written by a Herman Caine or Thomas Sowell. I don't for the life of me understand why Blacks vote Democratic Party. Why there own party hijacked by globalist, statist America hating liberals is giving *their* country away. I could understand when in the past they didn't feel like a full fledged part of our society. But now they are coming into their own. And what do they do? Support the party that is giving it all away. Lets give it away to all the illegals. Lets give it away to the EU. Lets tax all the oil and gas companies in the US and give it to all the poor countries, lets keep spending funny money so we are so much in debt no one will have anything. If Blacks were upset about not being a full participant in the American Dream then don't vote for a party that is destroying the American Dream.

Some Blacks did not like Obama's speech.

It was interesting to see some of the criticism of Obama's speech by some Blacks. They are tired of being lectured about young Black men not taking responsibility and instead blaming white racism for everything.

Some Blacks have asked so what can the Republican Party do for us?

How about a free country with real equal opportunity and individualism?

Here is his speech:

The Wall Street Journal SubscribeLog InU.S. Edition U.S. Barack Obama gave the commencement address at Morehouse College, an all-male historically black college in Atlanta, on May 19.

I have to say that it is one of the great honors of my life to be able to address this gathering here today. I want to thank Dr. Wilson for his outstanding leadership, and the Board of Trustees. We have Congressman Cedric Richmond and Sanford Bishop — both proud alumni of this school, as well as Congressman Hank Johnson. And one of my dear friends and a great inspiration to us all — the great John Lewis is here. (Applause.) We have your outstanding Mayor, Mr. Kasim Reed, in the house. (Applause.)

To all the members of the Morehouse family. And most of all, congratulations to this distinguished group of Morehouse Men — the Class of 2013. (Applause.)

I have to say that it’s a little hard to follow — not Dr. Wilson, but a skinny guy with a funny name. (Laughter.) Betsegaw Tadele — he’s going to be doing something.

I also have to say that you all are going to get wet. (Laughter.) And I’d be out there with you if I could. (Laughter.) But Secret Service gets nervous. (Laughter.) So I’m going to have to stay here, dry. (Laughter.) But know that I’m there with you in spirit. (Laughter.)

Some of you are graduating summa cum laude. (Applause.) Some of you are graduating magna cum laude. (Applause.) I know some of you are just graduating, “thank you, Lordy.” (Laughter and applause.) That’s appropriate because it’s a Sunday. (Laughter.)

I see some moms and grandmas here, aunts, in their Sunday best — although they are upset about their hair getting messed up. (Laughter.) Michelle would not be sitting in the rain. (Laughter.) She has taught me about hair. (Laughter.)

I want to congratulate all of you — the parents, the grandparents, the brothers and sisters, the family and friends who supported these young men in so many ways. This is your day, as well. Just think about it — your sons, your brothers, your nephews — they spent the last four years far from home and close to Spelman, and yet they are still here today. (Applause.) So you’ve done something right. Graduates, give a big round of applause to your family for everything that they’ve done for you. (Applause.)

I know that some of you had to wait in long lines to get into today’s ceremony. And I would apologize, but it did not have anything to do with security. Those graduates just wanted you to know what it’s like to register for classes here. (Laughter and applause.) And this time of year brings a different kind of stress — every senior stopping by Gloster Hall over the past week making sure your name was actually on the list of students who met all the graduation requirements. (Applause.) If it wasn’t on the list, you had to figure out why. Was it that library book you lent to that trifling roommate who didn’t return it? (Laughter.) Was it Dr. Johnson’s policy class? (Applause.) Did you get enough Crown Forum credits? (Applause.)

On that last point, I’m going to exercise my power as President to declare this speech sufficient Crown Forum credits for any otherwise eligible student to graduate. That is my graduation gift to you. (Applause.) You have a special dispensation.

Now, graduates, I am humbled to stand here with all of you as an honorary Morehouse Man. (Applause.) I finally made it. (Laughter.) And as I do, I’m mindful of an old saying: “You can always tell a Morehouse Man — (applause) — but you can’t tell him much.” (Applause.) And that makes my task a little more difficult, I suppose. But I think it also reflects the sense of pride that’s always been part of this school’s tradition.

Benjamin Mays, who served as the president of Morehouse for almost 30 years, understood that tradition better than anybody. He said — and I quote — “It will not be sufficient for Morehouse College, for any college, for that matter, to produce clever graduates — but rather honest men, men who can be trusted in public and private life — men who are sensitive to the wrongs, the sufferings, and the injustices of society and who are willing to accept responsibility for correcting (those) ills.”

It was that mission — not just to educate men, but to cultivate good men, strong men, upright men — that brought community leaders together just two years after the end of the Civil War. They assembled a list of 37 men, free blacks and freed slaves, who would make up the first prospective class of what later became Morehouse College. Most of those first students had a desire to become teachers and preachers — to better themselves so they could help others do the same.

A century and a half later, times have changed. But the “Morehouse Mystique” still endures. Some of you probably came here from communities where everybody looked like you. Others may have come here in search of a community. And I suspect that some of you probably felt a little bit of culture shock the first time you came together as a class in King’s Chapel. All of a sudden, you weren’t the only high school sports captain, you weren’t the only student council president. You were suddenly in a group of high achievers, and that meant you were expected to do something more.

That’s the unique sense of purpose that this place has always infused — the conviction that this is a training ground not only for individual success, but for leadership that can change the world.

Dr. King was just 15 years old when he enrolled here at Morehouse. He was an unknown, undersized, unassuming young freshman who lived at home with his parents. And I think it’s fair to say he wasn’t the coolest kid on campus — for the suits he wore, his classmates called him “Tweed.” But his education at Morehouse helped to forge the intellect, the discipline, the compassion, the soul force that would transform America. It was here that he was introduced to the writings of Gandhi and Thoreau, and the theory of civil disobedience. It was here that professors encouraged him to look past the world as it was and fight for the world as it should be. And it was here, at Morehouse, as Dr. King later wrote, where “I realized that nobody — was afraid.”

Not even of some bad weather. I added on that part. (Laughter.) I know it’s wet out there. But Dr. Wilson told me you all had a choice and decided to do it out here anyway. (Applause.) That’s a Morehouse Man talking.

Now, think about it. For black men in the ’40s and the ’50s, the threat of violence, the constant humiliations, large and small, the uncertainty that you could support a family, the gnawing doubts born of the Jim Crow culture that told you every day that somehow you were inferior, the temptation to shrink from the world, to accept your place, to avoid risks, to be afraid — that temptation was necessarily strong.

And yet, here, under the tutelage of men like Dr. Mays, young Martin learned to be unafraid. And he, in turn, taught others to be unafraid. And over time, he taught a nation to be unafraid. And over the last 50 years, thanks to the moral force of Dr. King and a Moses generation that overcame their fear and their cynicism and their despair, barriers have come tumbling down, and new doors of opportunity have swung open, and laws and hearts and minds have been changed to the point where someone who looks just like you can somehow come to serve as President of these United States of America. (Applause.)

So the history we share should give you hope. The future we share should give you hope. You’re graduating into an improving job market. You’re living in a time when advances in technology and communication put the world at your fingertips. Your generation is uniquely poised for success unlike any generation of African Americans that came before it.

But that doesn’t mean we don’t have work — because if we’re honest with ourselves, we know that too few of our brothers have the opportunities that you’ve had here at Morehouse.

In troubled neighborhoods all across this country — many of them heavily African American — too few of our citizens have role models to guide them. Communities just a couple miles from my house in Chicago, communities just a couple miles from here — they’re places where jobs are still too scarce and wages are still too low; where schools are underfunded and violence is pervasive; where too many of our men spend their youth not behind a desk in a classroom, but hanging out on the streets or brooding behind a jail cell.

My job, as President, is to advocate for policies that generate more opportunity for everybody — policies that strengthen the middle class and give more people the chance to climb their way into the middle class. Policies that create more good jobs and reduce poverty, and educate more children, and give more families the security of health care, and protect more of our children from the horrors of gun violence. That’s my job. Those are matters of public policy, and it is important for all of us — black, white and brown — to advocate for an America where everybody has got a fair shot in life. Not just some. Not just a few. (Applause.)

But along with collective responsibilities, we have individual responsibilities. There are some things, as black men, we can only do for ourselves. There are some things, as Morehouse Men, that you are obliged to do for those still left behind. As Morehouse Men, you now wield something even more powerful than the diploma you’re about to collect — and that’s the power of your example.

So what I ask of you today is the same thing I ask of every graduating class I address: Use that power for something larger than yourself. Live up to President Mays’s challenge. Be “sensitive to the wrongs, the sufferings, and the injustices of society.” And be “willing to accept responsibility for correcting (those) ills.”

I know that some of you came to Morehouse from communities where life was about keeping your head down and looking out for yourself. Maybe you feel like you escaped, and now you can take your degree and get that fancy job and the nice house and the nice car — and never look back. And don’t get me wrong — with all those student loans you’ve had to take out, I know you’ve got to earn some money. With doors open to you that your parents and grandparents could not even imagine, no one expects you to take a vow of poverty. But I will say it betrays a poverty of ambition if all you think about is what goods you can buy instead of what good you can do. (Applause.)

So, yes, go get that law degree. But if you do, ask yourself if the only option is to defend the rich and the powerful, or if you can also find some time to defend the powerless. Sure, go get your MBA, or start that business. We need black businesses out there. But ask yourselves what broader purpose your business might serve, in putting people to work, or transforming a neighborhood. The most successful CEOs I know didn’t start out intent just on making money — rather, they had a vision of how their product or service would change things, and the money followed. (Applause.)

Some of you may be headed to medical school to become doctors. But make sure you heal folks in underserved communities who really need it, too. For generations, certain groups in this country — especially African Americans — have been desperate in need of access to quality, affordable health care. And as a society, we’re finally beginning to change that. Those of you who are under the age of 26 already have the option to stay on your parent’s health care plan. But all of you are heading into an economy where many young people expect not only to have multiple jobs, but multiple careers.

So starting October 1st, because of the Affordable Care Act — otherwise known as Obamacare — (applause) — you’ll be able to shop for a quality, affordable plan that’s yours and travels with you — a plan that will insure not only your health, but your dreams if you are sick or get in an accident. But we’re going to need some doctors to make sure it works, too. We’ve got to make sure everybody has good health in this country. It’s not just good for you, it’s good for this country. So you’re going to have to spread the word to your fellow young people.

Which brings me to a second point: Just as Morehouse has taught you to expect more of yourselves, inspire those who look up to you to expect more of themselves. We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices. And I have to say, growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years is there’s no longer any room for excuses. (Applause.)

I understand there’s a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: “Excuses are tools of the incompetent used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness.” Well, we’ve got no time for excuses. Not because the bitter legacy of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they have not. Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there. It’s just that in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil — many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did — all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you have not earned. (Applause.)

Nobody cares how tough your upbringing was. Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination. And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you’ve gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured — and they overcame them. And if they overcame them, you can overcome them, too. (Applause.)

You now hail from a lineage and legacy of immeasurably strong men — men who bore tremendous burdens and still laid the stones for the path on which we now walk. You wear the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington, and Ralph Bunche and Langston Hughes, and George Washington Carver and Ralph Abernathy and Thurgood Marshall, and, yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. These men were many things to many people. And they knew full well the role that racism played in their lives. But when it came to their own accomplishments and sense of purpose, they had no time for excuses.

Every one of you have a grandma or an uncle or a parent who’s told you that at some point in life, as an African American, you have to work twice as hard as anyone else if you want to get by. I think President Mays put it even better: He said, “Whatever you do, strive to do it so well that no man living and no man dead, and no man yet to be born can do it any better.” (Applause.)

And I promise you, what was needed in Dr. Mays’s time, that spirit of excellence, and hard work, and dedication, and no excuses is needed now more than ever. If you think you can just get over in this economy just because you have a Morehouse degree, you’re in for a rude awakening. But if you stay hungry, if you keep hustling, if you keep on your grind and get other folks to do the same — nobody can stop you. (Applause.)

And when I talk about pursuing excellence and setting an example, I’m not just talking about in your professional life. One of today’s graduates, Frederick Anderson — where’s Frederick? Frederick, right here. (Applause.) I know it’s raining, but I’m going to tell about Frederick. Frederick started his college career in Ohio, only to find out that his high school sweetheart back in Georgia was pregnant. So he came back and enrolled in Morehouse to be closer to her. Pretty soon, helping raise a newborn and working night shifts became too much, so he started taking business classes at a technical college instead — doing everything from delivering newspapers to buffing hospital floors to support his family.

And then he enrolled at Morehouse a second time. But even with a job, he couldn’t keep up with the cost of tuition. So after getting his degree from that technical school, this father of three decided to come back to Morehouse for a third time. (Applause.) As Frederick says, “God has a plan for my life, and He’s not done with me yet.”

And today, Frederick is a family man, and a working man, and a Morehouse Man. (Applause.) And that’s what I’m asking all of you to do: Keep setting an example for what it means to be a man. (Applause.) Be the best husband to your wife, or you’re your boyfriend, or your partner. Be the best father you can be to your children. Because nothing is more important.

I was raised by a heroic single mom, wonderful grandparents — made incredible sacrifices for me. And I know there are moms and grandparents here today who did the same thing for all of you. But I sure wish I had had a father who was not only present, but involved.

Didn’t know my dad. And so my whole life, I’ve tried to be for Michelle and my girls what my father was not for my mother and me. I want to break that cycle where a father is not at home — (applause) — where a father is not helping to raise that son or daughter. I want to be a better father, a better husband, a better man.

It’s hard work that demands your constant attention and frequent sacrifice. And I promise you, Michelle will tell you I’m not perfect. She’s got a long list of my imperfections. (Laughter.) Even now, I’m still practicing, I’m still learning, still getting corrected in terms of how to be a fine husband and a good father. But I will tell you this: Everything else is unfulfilled if we fail at family, if we fail at that responsibility. (Applause.)

I know that when I am on my deathbed someday, I will not be thinking about any particular legislation I passed; I will not be thinking about a policy I promoted; I will not be thinking about the speech I gave, I will not be thinking the Nobel Prize I received. I will be thinking about that walk I took with my daughters. I’ll be thinking about a lazy afternoon with my wife. I’ll be thinking about sitting around the dinner table and seeing them happy and healthy and knowing that they were loved. And I’ll be thinking about whether I did right by all of them.

So be a good role model, set a good example for that young brother coming up. If you know somebody who’s not on point, go back and bring that brother along — those who’ve been left behind, who haven’t had the same opportunities we have — they need to hear from you. You’ve got to be engaged on the barbershops, on the basketball court, at church, spend time and energy and presence to give people opportunities and a chance. Pull them up, expose them, support their dreams. Don’t put them down.

We’ve got to teach them just like what we have to learn, what it means to be a man — to serve your city like Maynard Jackson; to shape the culture like Spike Lee; to be like Chester Davenport, one of the first people to integrate the University of Georgia Law School. When he got there, nobody would sit next to him in class. But Chester didn’t mind. Later on, he said, “It was the thing for me to do. Someone needed to be the first.” And today, Chester is here celebrating his 50th reunion. Where is Chester Davenport? He’s here. (Applause.)

So if you’ve had role models, fathers, brothers like that — thank them today. And if you haven’t, commit yourself to being that man to somebody else.

And finally, as you do these things, do them not just for yourself, but don’t even do them just for the African American community. I want you to set your sights higher. At the turn of the last century, W.E.B. DuBois spoke about the “talented tenth” — a class of highly educated, socially conscious leaders in the black community. But it’s not just the African American community that needs you. The country needs you. The world needs you.

As Morehouse Men, many of you know what it’s like to be an outsider; know what it’s like to be marginalized; know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination. And that’s an experience that a lot of Americans share. Hispanic Americans know that feeling when somebody asks them where they come from or tell them to go back. Gay and lesbian Americans feel it when a stranger passes judgment on their parenting skills or the love that they share. Muslim Americans feel it when they’re stared at with suspicion because of their faith. Any woman who knows the injustice of earning less pay for doing the same work — she knows what it’s like to be on the outside looking in.

So your experiences give you special insight that today’s leaders need. If you tap into that experience, it should endow you with empathy — the understanding of what it’s like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, to see through their eyes, to know what it’s like when you’re not born on 3rd base, thinking you hit a triple. It should give you the ability to connect. It should give you a sense of compassion and what it means to overcome barriers.

And I will tell you, Class of 2013, whatever success I have achieved, whatever positions of leadership I have held have depended less on Ivy League degrees or SAT scores or GPAs, and have instead been due to that sense of connection and empathy — the special obligation I felt, as a black man like you, to help those who need it most, people who didn’t have the opportunities that I had — because there but for the grace of God, go I — I might have been in their shoes. I might have been in prison. I might have been unemployed. I might not have been able to support a family. And that motivates me. (Applause.)

So it’s up to you to widen your circle of concern — to care about justice for everybody, white, black and brown. Everybody. Not just in your own community, but also across this country and around the world. To make sure everyone has a voice, and everybody gets a seat at the table; that everybody, no matter what you look like or where you come from, what your last name is — it doesn’t matter, everybody gets a chance to walk through those doors of opportunity if they are willing to work hard enough.

When Leland Shelton was four years old — where’s Leland? (Applause.) Stand up, Leland. When Leland Shelton was four years old, social services took him away from his mama, put him in the care of his grandparents. By age 14, he was in the foster care system. Three years after that, Leland enrolled in Morehouse. And today he is graduating Phi Beta Kappa on his way to Harvard Law School. (Applause.) But he’s not stopping there. As a member of the National Foster Care Youth and Alumni Policy Council, he plans to use his law degree to make sure kids like him don’t fall through the cracks. And it won’t matter whether they’re black kids or brown kids or white kids or Native American kids, because he’ll understand what they’re going through. And he’ll be fighting for them. He’ll be in their corner. That’s leadership. That’s a Morehouse Man right there. (Applause.)

That’s what we’ve come to expect from you, Morehouse — a legacy of leaders — not just in our black community, but for the entire American community. To recognize the burdens you carry with you, but to resist the temptation to use them as excuses. To transform the way we think about manhood, and set higher standards for ourselves and for others. To be successful, but also to understand that each of us has responsibilities not just to ourselves, but to one another and to future generations. Men who refuse to be afraid. Men who refuse to be afraid.

Members of the Class of 2013, you are heirs to a great legacy. You have within you that same courage and that same strength, the same resolve as the men who came before you. That’s what being a Morehouse Man is all about. That’s what being an American is all about.

Success may not come quickly or easily. But if you strive to do what’s right, if you work harder and dream bigger, if you set an example in your own lives and do your part to help meet the challenges of our time, then I’m confident that, together, we will continue the never-ending task of perfecting our union.

Congratulations, Class of 2013. God bless you. God bless Morehouse. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

From CCP: "Doug did you read Obama's speech at Morehouse? If one reads it one would think parts of it (at least) was written by a Herman Caine or Thomas Sowell. I don't for the life of me understand why Blacks vote Democratic Party. Why there own party hijacked by globalist, statist America hating liberals is giving *their* country away. I could understand when in the past they didn't feel like a full fledged part of our society. But now they are coming into their own. And what do they do? Support the party that is giving it all away. Lets give it away to all the illegals. Lets give it away to the EU. Lets tax all the oil and gas companies in the US and give it to all the poor countries, lets keep spending funny money so we are so much in debt no one will have anything. If Blacks were upset about not being a full participant in the American Dream then don't vote for a party that is destroying the American Dream. "

As is his way, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth to cover all bases, but the big applause line was that blacks have to work twice as hard [because America will always be a filthy, white, racist nation].-----

Pres. Barack Obama never had Martin Luther king's dream that people would be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Obama's dream was that he could double the black unemployment rate and they would double their turnout rate for him in return, because they would need him twice as much, and he would win 12 swing states, keep the jet and all the power and the perks. Blacks are more useful to him as victims and dependent on government.

When did Barack Obama work twice as hard as whites or anyone else? In the Choom Gang? At Occidental? At Columbia? Were his grades higher than all other to get into Harvard Law? Did he work twice as hard to become Law Review Editor? As Illinois State Senator? What bills did he author as Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois? What was his attendance record? Did he finish his first term? Pay his dues more than anyone ever has to become President? What had he accomplished in January 2009 when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? What a joke. What has he accomplished even now? He got elected, that's it.

Out in the real world, it is the opposite. Democrats had high hopes for this clean articulate (half) black man. Republicans are craving that too, looking at Condoleeza Rice, Allen West, Herman Cain, Dr. Benjamin Carson, and so many others, searching for greatness, especially in a black man or woman. Same in medicine, the business world, academics, diplomacy, grad schools, everywhere, at least that's how it is in my view.

"but the big applause line was that blacks have to work twice as hard"

Being from a socioeconomically lower home, community, poor performing public schools is certainly a disadvantage. Yet it is for anyone from those situations no matter what race or group they want to categorize themselves as - such as quarter northwest pacific southern Asian, Congolese, Jamaican, mixed decent or whatever.

Didn't stop the SOloDaD@#$%^&*() O'Brien from going to Harvard like the rest of her family and achieving fame and fortune despite no good White people who just want to move on off of the subject of race did it?

Banning Background Checks The EEOC says that screening for felonies is discriminatory.

Are criminal background checks racist? That's the startling new legal theory that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission unveiled this week in lawsuits against employers. It's another example of how President Obama's appointees are using regulation to achieve policy goals they can't get through Congress.

On Tuesday the EEOC accused retailer Dollar General DG -0.04%and a U.S. unit of German car maker BMW BMW.XE +1.26%of violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act by using criminal checks as part of their employment decisions. The logic? Blacks have higher conviction rates than whites, and therefore criminal checks discriminate against blacks.

The EEOC alleges that BMW discriminated against blacks because it screened contractors in South Carolina for convictions for "Murder, Assault & Battery, Rape, Child Abuse, Spousal Abuse (Domestic Violence), Manufacturing of Drugs, Distribution of Drugs, [and] Weapons Violations," and more blacks than whites are convicted of those crimes.

The suit says 70 black BMW contractors and 18 non-black contractors had criminal convictions, and the company declined to hire them. The suit seeks redress, such as hiring the plaintiffs, back pay, legal costs and more, but only for the black contractors.

In its Dollar General suit, the agency says that 10% of blacks and 7% of non-black applicants failed the retailer's criminal screening. The EEOC calls that three-percentage-point difference a "gross disparity" that is "statistically significant" enough to qualify as discrimination.

We would have thought that criminal checks discriminate against criminals, regardless of race, creed, gender or anything else. Such criminal checks are legal and have long been part of the hiring process at many companies. You can argue that criminals deserve a second chance in life, or even a third or fourth, but business owners and managers ought to be able to decide if they want to take the risk of hiring felons.

The EEOC suit is part of the Administration's larger effort to redefine racism in America by using statistics, rather than individual intent or evidence. The Justice and Housing Departments have rewritten their rules and punished banks and counties like Westchester, N.Y., based on disparate statistical measures of lending and zoning. The EEOC signaled its plans in April last year when it rewrote its enforcement strategy, declaring that "an employer's evidence of a racially balanced workforce will not be enough to disprove disparate impact."

Mull that one over. Even if a company has a racially diverse workforce, it can still be sued if its applicant pool doesn't meet the EEOC's statistical tests. So a retailer that decides it would rather not have proven thieves manning its cash registers could be guilty of racism if the convicted thieves in its applicant pool are disproportionately minority.

Jacqueline Berrien, a former NAACP attorney who is now EEOC chairman, has been waiting for a Democratic majority on the five-member commission to gin up this agenda. Outlawing credit checks in hiring may be next on the agenda. The next three years are going to be a full-employment opportunity for labor lawyers, if not for the rest of America.

WASHINGTON — Within days, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a series of decisions that could transform three fundamental social institutions: marriage, education and voting.

Abigail Fisher is challenging affirmative action, saying the University of Texas should not classify people on the basis of race.

Edith Windsor is challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The extraordinary run of blockbuster rulings due in the space of a single week will also reshape the meaning of legal equality and help define for decades to come one of the Constitution’s grandest commands: “the equal protection of the laws.”

If those words require only equal treatment from the government, the rulings are likely to be a mixed bag that will delight and disappoint liberals and conservatives in equal measure. Under that approach, same-sex couples who want to marry would be better off at the end of the term, while blacks and Hispanics could find it harder to get into college and to vote.

But a tension runs through the cases, one based on different conceptions of equality. Some justices are committed to formal equality. Others say the Constitution requires a more dynamic kind of equality, one that takes account of the weight of history and of modern disparities.

The four major cases yet to be decided concern same-sex marriage, affirmative action in higher education and the fate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which places special burdens on states with a history of racial discrimination.

Formal equality would require that gay couples be treated just like straight couples when it comes to marriage, white students just like black students when it comes to admissions decisions and Southern states just like Northern ones when it comes to federal oversight of voting. The effect would be to help gay couples, and hurt blacks and Latinos.

But such rulings — “liberal” when it comes to gay rights, “conservative” when it comes to race — are hard to reconcile with the historical meaning of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, adopted in the wake of the Civil War and meant to protect the newly freed black slaves. It would be odd, said David A. Strauss, a law professor at the University of Chicago, for that amendment to help gays but not blacks.

“What’s weird about it would be the retreat on race, which is the paradigm example of what the 14th Amendment is meant to deal with,” he said, “coupled with fairly aggressive action on sexual orientation.”

But actual as opposed to formal racial equality has fallen out of favor in some circles, Professor Strauss said. “One thing that seems to be going on with these historically excluded groups,” he said, “is that they come to be thought of as just another interest group. Blacks seem to have crossed that line.”

Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to express that view during the argument in February in the voting rights case, Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96. “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements,” he said, “it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Gay men and lesbians have yet to achieve formal legal equality. They are not protected against job discrimination in much of the nation, may not marry their same-sex partners in most of it and do not have their marriages recognized by the federal government in any of it. The fact that they are asking for equal treatment may help their cause in the cases challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which for purposes of federal benefits defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and Proposition 8, the California voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage there.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested in March that ordinary politics would sort things out. “As far as I can tell,” he told a lawyer challenging the federal marriage law in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, “political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

In the three months since that argument, three more states have adopted same-sex marriage, raising the total to 12, along with the District of Columbia.

Kenji Yoshino, a law professor at New York University, said the two different conceptions of equal protection are animated by different concerns. One is skeptical of government classifications based on race and similar characteristics, whatever their goals. The other tries to make sure that historically disfavored groups are not subordinated.

Consider the case of Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was denied admission to the University of Texas. She says the university, an arm of the state government, should not classify people on the basis of race because that violates a colorblind conception of the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Defenders of the university’s affirmative action program say the purpose of the classification must figure in the equal protection analysis. “What we’re really trying to do is try to make sure there aren’t castes in our society, and we will try to lift up castes,” Professor Yoshino said.

A formal conception of equality helps Ms. Fisher in her case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345. A dynamic one helps the university.

Whichever side loses a major Supreme Court case is likely to say the decision was an example of judicial activism. That term can be an empty insult, but political scientists try to give it meaning. They say a court is activist when it strikes down a law as unconstitutional. There is a chance the court will be activist in that sense twice this week.

It may strike down central provisions of the federal marriage law and of the Voting Rights Act. Should that happen, said Pamela Harris, an adviser to the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown’s law school, “the left will be saying out of one side of its mouth, ‘How dare you strike down the considered judgment of Congress in the Voting Rights Act?’ ” In the same breath, she said, liberals will add, “But great job on DOMA.”

There is another possibility: one or more of the cases could fizzle, said Walter E. Dellinger, who served as acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration and filed an influential brief in the Proposition 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144. It argued that the failure of officials in California to appeal the judgment against them deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to decide the case, and it was discussed at the argument in March.

Mr. Dellinger said all four remaining blockbuster cases suffer from plausible procedural flaws that could lead to their dismissal. “I’ve never heard of this before,” he said of such an end-of-term possibility.

An effort to harmonize all of the court’s big decisions may in the end prove impossible. “It’s hard to imagine somebody happy with everything they do, except Justice Kennedy,” Professor Strauss said, referring to the member of the court at its ideological center, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

That may be just as well for the court’s reputation. In giving something to liberals and something to conservatives, as it often does, Professor Strauss said, “the court has avoided putting itself in a position where either side wants to declare war on them.”

"there are more African-Americans in the corrections system today—in prison or on probation or parole—than there were enslaved in 1850. As of 2004, more black men were denied the right to vote because of a criminal record than in 1870, when the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, giving blacks the right to vote."

Posted under race because he makes that his focus. My view is that America's underclass and inner city problems disproportionately hit people of color but are not uniquely racial problems.

This a long and very interesting article written by a former spiritual adviser to President Obama. His observations, awareness of the problem and historical data are quite good. This is perhaps the biggest problems in America, tied to so many other challenges. Imagine our economy if America's underclass suddenly got up and participated full time in the economy. His keen insights, including failure of the war on drugs, however completely ignore the number one cause of the problem.

"He completely ignore the number one cause of the problem."-----"Though there is much I think it misses, that was an interesting article. "-----

The main theme of ACORN, community organizing, most inner city programs and Obama's path to political power, including his reelection with 98% of black vote, is 'welfare rights'. How can we pay more people, deserving our not, to be unproductive.

Pres. Obama never pivoted off of that to inspire personal responsibility, economic achievement or even self-sufficiency. In his view, that message belongs to his opponents.

Number one cause of the troubles experienced by inner city black males is not drug law, but ubiquitous welfare. The government became the provider making the husband obsolete and unnecessary. Losing that role, the black male too often wanders off into either trouble or idleness.

The problem is not racial IMO. It affects people of all races and plenty of black males choose to live wonderfully productive work lives full of success. But this problem does afflict blacks disproportionately.

The elephant in the room is that our perverted welfare system is hurting the recipients even worse than it hurts those who are footing the bill.

From Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, June 24:

While I find the theory advanced by the University to justify racial discrimination facially inadequate, I also believe that its use of race has little to do with the alleged educational benefits of diversity. I suspect that the University's program is instead based on the benighted notion that it is possible to tell when discrimination helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities. . . . The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.

Slaveholders argued that slavery was a "positive good" that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life. See, e.g., Calhoun, Speech in the U.S. Senate, 1837, in P. Finkelman, Defending Slavery 54, 58–59 (2003) ("Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually . . .")

. . . A century later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black students. They argued, for example, that separate schools protected black children from racist white students and teachers. See, e.g., . . . Tr. of Oral Arg. in Bolling v. Sharpe, O.T. 1952, No. 413, p. 56 ("There was behind these [a]cts a kindly feeling [and] an intention to help these people who had been in bondage. And there was and there still is an intention by the Congress to see that these children shall be educated in a healthful atmosphere, in a wholesome atmosphere, in a place where they are wanted . . .")

. . . Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.

Why does Baldwin get a pass, because he can (with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan) sing this song:

I am the very model of a modern Media Liberal, I’ve information vegan, and organic and Earth-centrical, I know all of the Kennedys, can quote court fights historical From Roe v. Wade down to Prop eight, in order categorical.

I’m very well acquainted, with the need to tax the richest man, I grasp John Maynard Keynes, and of State-spending I’m a real fan, About Obamanomics I am teeming with a lot o’ news, (hmmm lot o’news…) With many cheerful stats to show Recovery is not a ruse!

Media Chorus: With many cheerful stats to show Recovery is not a ruse With many cheerful stats to show Recovery is not a ruse With many cheerful stats to show Recovery is not is not a ruse.

I’m good with Krugman’s thought: indeed, I understand his calculus; I know each species whose survival may indeed be grave at risk In short, in matters vegan, and organic and Earth-centrical I am the very model of a modern Media Liberal,

Media Chorus: In short, in matters vegan, and organic and Earth-centrical, He is the very model of a modern Media Liberal,

I know our mythic history, Marg’ret Sanger to Obama; I follow all pop music and the best of Cable Drama, I understand quite clearly global warning’s threat and dire purview And laugh at every quip that shows the ignorance of W!

I’m comf’rtable with lyrics all Nicki Minaj has put to pen But hear sublim’nal racism in all that Rush could ever ken I see so very surely that Bill Clinton is a feminist (feminist, feminist??? ah why not.) Unlike that Sarah Palin, who is simply just completely dense.

Media Chorus: Unlike that Sarah Palin, who is simply just completely dense. Unlike that Sarah Palin, who is simply just completely dense. Unlike that Sarah Palin, who is simply just completely completely dense.

I can detail the nature full of Occupy’s most noble cause And tell you that The Teaparty is astroturf, with many flaws: In short, in matters vegan and organic and Earth-centricial, I am the very model of a modern Media Liberal,

Media Chorus: In short, in matters vegan, and organic and Earth-centricial, He is the very model of a modern Media Liberal,

I know that G-m foods are bad for all the tragic poor to eat I can’t abide a restaurant unless it serves organic meat I know that an abortion is a right most constitutional And citizens with firearms is strictly just militianal

I see Islamophobia each soul that’s pure quite right eschews and, as we know, our problems come from Christians and religious Jews, I clear see why conservatism is a racist strategy – (strategy hmmm) You’ll say a better Liberal has never been on your TV

Media Chorus: You’ll say a better Liberal has never been on your TV You’ll say a better Liberal has never been on your TV You’ll say a better Liberal has never been on your TV

I know the State of Israel’s the mirror of South Africay And Say we must recall all troops right back inside the USA In short in matters vegan and organic and Earth-centricial,, I am the very model of a modern Media Liberal!

Media Chorus: In short, in matters vegan, and organic and Earth-centricial, He is the very model of a modern Media Liberal!

Want to get a media pass on any and every offense? Learn to live this song. Any questions? (My thanks to James Marley for his invaluable help & critique)

A Good Morning America newsreader actually addressed the question of bias without noting that he himself, and his colleagues, are actually responsible for that bias. He acted as if it were something just floating in the air he had nothing to do with:

On Saturday and Sunday, Good Morning America noticed a double standard and allowed another four minutes and 41 seconds. On Monday, News reader Josh Elliott wondered, "Do you see, now, a double standard? Because Hollywood has been noticeably silent with regard to Alec Baldwin." With no self-awareness, he added, "I find the silence, though, to be deafening."

Hollywood has been silent? Yes of course they have; they're not reporters and they all have a stake in the proposition that Hollywood misbehavior should not be widely reported.

What about the alleged news media?

The Washington Post says "some allege" a double standard, but apparently are not able to carry the ball any further:

Of course, some allege a double standard — that Baldwin is given a pass because of his liberal politics for the same kind of jerk behavior that nearly ruined conservative star Mel Gibson."

But then they quote Democratic activist Hillary Rosen:

We asked Hilary Rosen, the Washington media strategist who has been friends with Baldwin since college. "What he said was disgusting," she told us. "But I think he has a deeper reservoir of good will among folks because he’s been a progressive ally and fighter for progressive causes for years, and that’s the genuine side of him."

Two points:

First: Why ask a Democratic activist about why there is bias in the media?

Second: They offer this explanation as if it disproves bias-- failing to notice that the explanation of Baldwin's reservoir of goodwill among progressives proves, rather than disproves, an obnoxiously blatant progressive bias in the media.

The Washington Post concludes that there is no double standard, it's just that Baldwin so frequently uses racist and homophobic slurs that people just accept this as part of the big lug.

Really? That's the explanation? That he's so consistently hateful that the supposedly super-tolerant media just gives him a pass?

Isn't it great to be Alec Baldwin? When you're Alec Baldwin you can do or say pretty much anything and there are no repercussions. You can even call a member of the media a "coon" and a "crackhead" and still be celebrated by Hollywood and by the Left because... well... because you're Alec Baldwin and you're a liberal.

The New York Post reports on the incident that occurred Sunday morning involving the "30 Rock" star and a Post reporter and photographer:

Baldwin had first been approached by a Post reporter while walking his dogs outside his East 10th Street pad at around 10:50 a.m. He was asked for comment on a lawsuit against his wife, Hilaria, involving her work as a yoga instructor.

The “30 Rock’’ star grabbed the reporter, Tara Palmeri, by her arm and told her, “I want you to choke to death,” Palmeri told police, for whom she played an audiotape of the conversation.

He then called G.N. Miller — a decorated retired detective with the NYPD’s Organized Crime Control Bureau and a staff photographer for The Post — a “coon, a drug dealer,’’ Miller’s police statement said.

Let's recount Baldwin's behavior so there's no misunderstanding.

A credentialed reporter for one of the oldest American newspapers asks a public figure a question on a public street. The person grabs the reporter (a young woman) by the arm and tells her he wants her to "choke to death." He then turns to the credentialed photographer for the same newspaper (who happens to be black) and calls him a "coon" and a "crackhead."

Later, on Twitter, Baldwin continued the racially charged verbal attack on the photographer, erroneously calling him "Ralston": (Tweets have since been deleted)

Until now, mainstream media outlets have given their liberal loverboy a pass for his obnoxious and offensive behavior because it is usually directed towards a Republican politician or against the hated "paparazzi" whom most reporters like to pretend they are better than. But now the vitriol and hate is directed at the New York Post. We know most elite media establishments believe they are superior to the Post, but if they pause for just a moment, they might hear the cautionary words of pastor Martin Niemöller ringing in their subconscious...

First they came for the paparazzi, and I didn't speak out because I was not a paparazzi.

Anderson Cooper, the CNN star, said — tweeted — “Why does #AlecBaldwin get a pass when he uses gay slurs? If a conservative talked of beating up a ‘queen’ they would be vilified.” (A conservative, or any other individual, in our modern English, is a “they.”)

Why does Baldwin get a pass? Was Cooper’s question rhetorical or does he really not know? He no doubt knows, and his tweet suggests as much: Baldwin gets a pass because he’s on the left. And to be on the left is to be forgiven all, or almost all.

"I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white." - Thomas Sowell...Column concludes: "The time is long overdue to stop looking for progress through racial or ethnic leaders. Such leaders have too many incentives to promote polarizing attitudes and actions that are counterproductive for minorities and disastrous for the country."

"There is in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong, a love of truth and a veneration of virtue ... if the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice..." --John Adams (1775)

This week, while reviewing a new comprehensive national survey of racism from Rasmussen Reports, I was struck by this finding: "Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way."

That study is an interesting backdrop for the trial by jury of former Neighborhood Watch organizer George Zimmerman, and the trial by Leftmedia of now former-Emmy Award-winning Food Network host Paula Deen. It is not my purpose to defend Zimmerman or Deen, but they are both current case studies in racist political agendas -- and these should be fully exposed.

Additionally, the Deen case opens the door wide for an inquiry into double standards -- if only a real journalist in the White House press corps would step through it and ask one question -- but more on that in a moment.

In the case of Zimmerman, he admitted to the self-defense shooting of a black youth, Trayvon Martin, in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012.

At the time, Martin's death got a total of four paragraphs in the Orlando Sentinel. It may have deserved more coverage but according to the most reliable eyewitness, Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and it appeared to be another non-news self-defense shooting -- not a racially motivated murder.

But a month after the Zimmerman/Martin altercation, Barack Hussein Obama and his NeoCom cadres decided to exploit the case as a re-election rallying cry for his most loyal constituency, "the black vote."

Obama's race-baiting political hustlers descended on Sanford with a mission: Make George Zimmerman a poster-boy for racist hate-crimes.

Indeed, the Democrat Party long ago mastered the art of divide-and-conquer politics of disparity in order to sustain the allegiance of blacks. Indeed, more than 95 percent of black voters support Democrats. Were it not for the votes of this most devoted constituency, Democrats would be hard-pressed to win more than a few statewide elections -- much less a presidential election.

And not only did the "usual suspects" show up to stir the racial pot, but we can now add Obama's Justice Department to the list of Executive Branch agencies promoting his political agenda.

According to documents obtained by the non-partisan group Judicial Watch, DoJ authorized expenditures to send its so-called "Community Relations Service" personnel to Florida, and tasked them with organizing and promoting protests around the state for the prosecution of George Zimmerman.

Ahead of Obama's public comments about the case, the DoJ operatives were "deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies," and "to provide support for protest deployment" and "technical assistance to ... event organizers." Ostensibly, they were sent to serve as "peace keepers," but their mission and activities were nothing more than a thinly veiled component of Obama's political campaign agenda.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton concludes, "These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman. My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations."

Good guess!

Once the race hustlers and DoJ had plowed the Florida fields, Obama, the consummate racial agitator, nationalized the Zimmerman/Martin case by sowing this seed: "This is a tragedy, uh ... uh and when I think about this boy, uh, I think about my own kids, uh ... I think that all of us need to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this happened. ... If I had a son he would look like Trayvon, and, uh, you know, I think [his parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans, uh, are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."

Obama's entry into the fray, and the predictable Leftmedia feeding frenzy painting this incident as a hate crime (racially tagging Zimmerman as "white Hispanic" to imply a white-on-black hate crime), elevated the case from a simmering local conflict to a boiling national brawl.

In contrast to the Zimmerman/Martin case, recall that in 2009, after Islamist radical Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 soldiers and wounded 29 others at Ft. Hood, Texas, yelling "Allahu Akbar!" as he gunned them down, Obama was quick to counsel the nation, "We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Ironically, in the same weekend that Obama made this incident part of his re-election strategy, he refrained from any comment on the unmitigated violence in his hometown of Chicago, where, in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously injured. Most of the victims were 15-30 years of age and the assailants were black or Latino. One of the dead was 6-year-old Aliyah Shell, who was murdered while playing on the front porch of her home in the Little Village neighborhood.

All of the Chicago violence occurred, and continues to occur, under the watch of Obama's former chief of staff, now-Mayor Rahm Emanuel. But the daily slaughter of blacks by other blacks is not a political rallying point for the Left's black constituents, because their political agenda depends on blacks believing they are "victims," not victimizers.

But another black leader did have the courage to condemn the hatred in Chicago. In 1968, Martin Luther King went to Chicago, and amid the racial strife of that era, declared, "This is the most tragic picture of man's inhumanity to man. I've been to Mississippi and Alabama and I can tell you that the hatred and hostility in Chicago are really deeper than in Alabama and Mississippi." King added, "Those who are associated with 'Black Power' and black supremacy are wrong."

Not much has changed in Chicago, but Obama, et al., are focused on their political strategy in Florida -- now a 2014 midterm election rallying point.

Of course, Obama's Leftmedia cadres rigorously observe his "code of silence" concerning black-on-white racist crimes. Their silence is deafening when it comes to indisputable black-on-white hate crimes -- whether they be the most heinous rape/torture/mutilation/murders of a young white couple, or the race-motivated murder of a white man by four black gangbangers just last week.

So, with all the heat being generated by the Zimmerman/Martin case, how does the persecution of Paula Deen open the door for some challenging questions about racism and double standards?

Another twist was a female lawyer on cable today suggesting those who criticize the verdict are really discriminating against women because the jury and judge were all female.

There seems no end to this by who those intent on turning this small town trial into spearheads for any variety of national political agendas or money making campaigns from marketers, medias, attorneys, race baiters, politicians, book writers, and possibly book deals, or fifteen minutes of fame from jurors.

Everyone has their own opinion and mine is manslaughter would have been the closet to fit the circumstance. It does bother me a 17 child walks to the store for soda and candy and gets killed on the way home while taking a shortcut. Zimmerman did start the whole think.

That said turning this into a the civil rights issue of the century is just beyond my logic.

It remains to be seen how harassed will Zimmerman be and for how long. On one hand he will suffer pushback forever. On the other hand this might be a money making opportunity for him.

Perhaps it is good in our system that this information was covered up from the jury in their deliberations, and perhaps good that juveniles have some protection against public and permanent records of their youthful indiscretions. However, it would be nice if the public and community agitators were more aware that this victim did not just look like the people who committed the burglaries but had himself done so and was very possibly scoping out new targets, just as it allegedly looked to Zimmerman.